The hereditary chiefs of Fiji are no more -at least in a formal sense – having been removed at the stroke of a pen from determining the country’s affairs. More than 130 years of tradition was wiped from the history books in a surprise announcement by the Fijian leader, Frank Bainimarama, who described the Great Council of Chiefs as an anachronism which no longer had a place in modern Fiji.
No-one was expecting the announcement and it sent shock waves around the world. Here’s an account of what happened in the London Daily Telegraph,the organ of choice for those former British colonial servants who once ruled an empire on which the sun famously never set. It also made the pages of The Scotsman.
It was a former British governor, Sir Arthur Gordon, who set up the Council of Chiefs -as it was known then – in the 1870s to represent the interests of indigenous Fijians in colonial Fiji. For more than 100 years, its power was unassailable. In fact, it would have been inconceivable just a few years ago that the GCC could have possibly been challenged by anyone, let alone disbanded, such was its power and influence in modern Fiji.
But just as Britain’s hereditary House of Lords felt the chill wind of reform under Tony Blair, Bainimarama took on the Great Council of Chiefs, marginalised its members and then destroyed it. Will ordinary Fijians rebel? That’s the million dollar question. But if they don’t, Fiji’s chiefly system is dead. The hereditary peers of the South Seas will keep their titles and their traditional duties but be irrelevant when it comes to deciding the nation’s affairs. The revolution will have happened just because someone had the audacity to defy them.
In their weakened state, paramount chiefs like the Tui Cakau, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu, have been remarkably muted in their response. He told Radio Australia that the decision was “sad”. Predictably, there’s been a tougher response from the exiled Ratu Tevita Mara and Laisenia Qarase, the newly emboldened leader of the SDL, who both said Bainimarama had no right to summarily emasculate the chiefs without broader consultation. But will there be any kind of grassroots revolt? It will be intriguing to see how ordinary Fijians react at village level in the Vanua.
In the meantime, more evidence that official sentiment in Australia is shifting inexorably towards re-engagement with Fiji. The Opposition’s foreign affairs spokeswoman, Julie Bishop, has written an article for The Australian again calling on the government to abandon its current hardline policy. Although there seems little prospect of that happening in the foreseeable future ( see previous postings), Australian domestic politics dictates that the days of Fiji’s isolation are numbered. For months, the opinion polls have had the Labor government’s primary vote flat lining at around 30 per cent. And if that continues, Labor is doomed. Frank Bainimarama will be counting down the days to Tony Abbott becoming prime minister.
Further reading: The NZ blogger and former Fiji academic, Crosbie Walsh, describes some of the Prime Minister’s recent pronouncements – including the abolition of the GCC – as “disturbing” and questions whether they are preempting discussions on a new constitution.
Graham, the delegislation of the GCC isn’t that much of a surprise. It had already been marginalised by the government and I believe that the timing of this latest step, just before constitutional consultation starts, is to see just how important the Fijian people really feel the institution is in the scheme of things.
It’s easy to allow the status quo to remain unchanged, but it takes an active choice to reinstate something that has now been written out of the statute books. I’m very interested to see the outcome of constitutional deliberations on this since it will determine whether or not the GCC is reinstated as an arm of government in 2014.
Rebellion should have nothing to do with it – what follows needs to be a reasoned argument and support for why (or not) the GCC needs to exist, either as an entity or as a part of government. If nothing else, this will have engendered a great deal of interest in people who might not have considered participating in the constitutional discussions before now.
In 1947 the maharajah’s in India were similarly ‘dis-established’, having been used as an agent of British indirect rule.
Fiji has to break from its feudal past. The idea of having a society composed of rulers and the ruled, the idea of the ‘Divine Right’ of chiefs and the proverbial ‘silver spoon’ that underpin a sense of entitlement, are outmoded concepts that have no relevance to a modern Fiji.
Like the Indians in India in 1947, Fijians will have to learn to get over it.
Someone once said not long ago that it should be called The Great Council Of Thieves.A waste of taxpayers money and irrelevant to modern Fiji.
In my own opinion this is a bad move by Frank. Just when the majority of grassroots Fijians are leaning towards him, he makes this decision. once he loses support in the provinces where majority of the chiefs are, the likes of Qarase and company will have a field day in brainwashing the people that this is the beginning of the end of the Fijians as a race.
We’ve heard from the antagonists, stating ‘its a sad day for Fiji’, the move was disrespectful and should have waited till the constitution consultations, Taukei culture is being dismembered, the fear of Taukei land being stolen yet again; these are some of the insecurities career politicians in Fiji have peddled. All are straw man fallacies.
IMHO, the GCC was an outdated forum for the 1% aristocratic taukei, and their members believed that the average Jone and Joanna could not think for themselves and needed GCC’s advice on democratic issues.
The removal of GCC represents a cognitive dissonance moment in Fiji’s political history; when Taukei wade through all the discourse and ponder in depth, the concepts of democracy and aristocracy.
http://crosbiew.blogspot.com/2011/06/great-council-of-chiefs-in-2000-damned.html
Look beyond the present. Unfortunately or fortunately, the Bainimarama regime will not be around forever. They will have no say over policies implemented in future. it is quite conceivable that the chiefs will return with a vengeance under the patronage of a future administration. It could happen within our lifetime.
In an unashamed bid to shore up his political stock Qarase took government patronage of the chiefs to new levels, lavishing power, authority and taxpayers money on them with negligent returns for Fiji. Millions spent on GCC white elephant HQ. Same money spent on Fijian scholarships would have yielded better results. The GCC is denying deserving citizens access to scarce resources. Qarase and his government corrupted the GCC. Or does the GCC does have a corrupting influence on governments? Chicken and egg?
Charles Singh
You are absolutely right!! I worked at the FAB for 17 years and I can tell you that the GCC secretariat under Adi Litia Qionibaravi was a cesspool of corruption and dirty politics. It was rampant with cronyism,nepotism. It will fill this whole column if the affairs of the GCC be allowed to air in public.PM Bainimarama was spot on in his statement on why the GCC was abolished.Take a look at the comments from the Tui Macuata Ratu Aisea Katonivere, he kows because we worked together at the FAB before he resigned to take up his traditional position.
The chiefly system has not been abolished, its still intact and will be there until the end of time. For someone to say that this will be the end of the Chiefs is an absolute lie hell bent on political points scoring and trying to fuel emotions on the Fijian Community. Anyway everything happens for a Reason.
Democracy has to be the only game in town. Pro democracy advocates will tell you that. So if that is to be the case, why should we mourn the passing of a undemocratic anachronism that is why past its use by date?